Haelfix said:
To make a very bad analogy, if you have a finite set of legos, and you have a city that exists and you don't know what it's made off. A natural hypothesis might be that its made of legos.
Why would you think that? Well you know that *all* of the various structures you see can in principle be made out of compositions of legos, also you know that the city can't be made out of brick/wood/steel/most things you can check.
It is really much worse than that analogy.
We know that the lion's share of the legos (vacua) in the pile are the kind with the bumps on the top, but from our observation, all of the various structures we see in the city involve "female legos" with the bumps pointed inward rather than outward and
we haven't even seen any legos like that in the pile yet. The pile of legos is a big stack, and we can't see all of the legos, so it's certainly possible that there are female legos in the pile, but we haven't seen any of those kinds of legos yet.
Indeed, we haven't even ever seen a stand alone lego either. We've seen clumps of legos that might be made out of individual legos (i.e. strings), but we haven't been able to come up with a parts list that has the full specifications for how the legos combine into the clumps we see and have have several competing parts list sheets circulating around.
And, the only way that this city can hold together work is there are six completely undetected dimensions of space that exist solely to make the rubber bands holding some of the structures together (i.e. gravity) much weaker than we would naively expect them to be.
Moreover, the parts of the pile of legos that have been studied most closely have features that may not be present at all in the real structures, because we didn't have as good of a view of the real structures when we started looking at the lego pile (e.g. supersymmetry, Marjorana neutrinos, baryon number and lepton number violation, proton decay, and dark matter).